Should you blame the media if your demo doesn’t work? Look at it from the journalist’s point of view for a second.
There are three big dilemmas in reporting any major demonstration where there is violence.
Firstly, how do you balance the visually-arresting actions of a small group with the low-key political festivities of the majority?
Secondly, how do you characterise those people acting violently? Thugs? Anarchists? Break-away group? And a sub-set of this is how do you characterise a sit-in at Fortnums, compared to, say, throwing paint at police?
Thirdly, how do you report the issues rather than the physical demonstrations?
With today’s TUC rally against the cuts there was a lot of anger from supporters at the way that Sky showed a split screen [see image to the left] which showed Ed Miliband’s speech in Hyde Park alongside some vandalism at TopShop. The BBC also juxtaposed the two in a way that detracted from the Labour leader’s speech.
I think those who complained should first have a word with UK Uncut who decided to occupy or assault various retail outlets at the very same time as the mainstream majority demonstration was trying to get its message out on national TV.
The TV channels were quite right to show the public what was actually happening. Bringing the country’s premier shopping street to a halt is newsworthy. The publicity was also what the various ‘anarchists’ and other protesters wanted. They hi-jacked the TUC’s demo. UK Uncut knew that their often witty and creative neo-Situationalist agit-prop ‘events’ were bound to attract some violence, too. I am writing this at about 5pm by which time the trouble has been relatively trivial, but who knows what will happen as darkness falls?
In fact, the news channels were pains-taking in their commentaries to make it clear that the violent incidents had nothing much to do with the mainstream demonstration. They were also very clear that very few people were either hurt or arrested.
On the second point I think that again, the media made efforts to distinguish between the different direct action groups, but it’s not easy. One BBC reporter kept referring to ‘people dressed in black’ as if that was the definition of a political grouping. It was probably about as accurate as any attempt to dignify them with the description of ‘anarchist’. The reality is that most viewers/readers won’t distinguish between some Brighton art student giving a poetry reading in Fortnums with an over-excited Trot throwing a dustbin through plate glass.
The third point is interesting. Should the media prioritise an issue just because an organisation can get a lot of people into the same place at the same time? On that basis, perhaps we should be paying more attention to immigration in the light of all those EDL rallies.
More seriously, it’s difficult to combine the kind of ‘match report’ journalism that tells you what happened at a demo with a proper debate about the issues.
In the end, this was an impressive turn-out and I am sure it will have an effect beyond the immediate media coverage. It should cheer up those people in the Labour movement campaigning against the cuts and promote solidarity.
It does send a signal that there are a lot of people out there who want an alternative. Whether you think there is one is another matter.
But I doubt it will make much impact on the two-thirds of British voters who think that the deficit reduction programme is justified. Today’s demonstration – both peaceful and violent – was an admirable manifestation of people’s desire to make a political gesture. But I suspect that however the media had reported it, it would not shift the balance of opinion. In fact it has probably put off a lot of people who are genuinely unhappy about current economic policy. It’s time for political movements to think beyond both mass rallies and trashing Topshop.
On the plus side of vandalising Top Shop: At least you didn’t have to listen to Miliband’s speech.
Can the academic reputation of LSE be dragged any lower.
“Should the media prioritise an issue just because an organisation can get a lot of people into the same place at the same time? On that basis, perhaps we should be paying more attention to immigration in the light of all those EDL rallies.”
The largest EDL rally ever held was 1% of the size of yesterday’s march.
Dear Charlie, great post. However, the word is painstaking, without a hyphen. If you must use one, then it should read pains-taking. As in taking pains to… No one stakes pain. Except vampires, possibly. Yours, pedantically.
‘Firstly, how do you balance the visually-arresting actions of a small group with the low-key political festivities of the majority?’
It’s a question of what news organisations choose to do. Television news is generic; it has it’s codes and conventions. It’s not an act of nature.
If the news is inclined to simply ‘balance’ the actions of a violent few hundred with those of the peaceful 100s of thousands (and a split screen looks like impeccable balance) then there is something wrong with the construction of the news and its value system not the events it seeks to represent.
‘more attention to immigration’ – it’s not as if immigration isn’t given extensive attention as it is. Every dubious study by Migrationwatch is basically guaranteed a slot on Today and a splash in the Express.
‘it has probably put off a lot of people’ – this is pure supposition based on no evidence whatsoever, right?
Whilst the poll for the Guardian points to a 57% support for cuts, the comres poll for ITN says the opposite with over 50% saying they go too far
Thanks for all the comments and for the huge traffic to this post. Thanks also for all the re-tweets.
A quick response to the above comments.
You are missing my point about the EDL. I am not suggesting that they are comparable to the TUC. The point is whether you should pay more attention to someone because they go to all the trouble to demonstrate.
I actually think that you should pay attention to people who demonstrate because it is a measure of the weight of public opinion. But as both the EDL and TUC demos showed, it’s not a very accurate measure and it’s not a very effective advocacy tool. Especially when violence is involved.
As for the putting non-supporters off. All the evidence I have ever seen is that non-commited voters are always put off a cause by violence. Does anyone seriously think that a swing voter, say, is more likely to oppose government policy because the Ritz gets a window smashed?
On support for the cuts – even if an ITN poll shows that 50% oppose the cuts then I think that is surprisingly low. Thatcher faced far greater opposition for her economic politics which were arguably less radical.
In a more interactive broadcast, you can size the two screens according to the number of people participating. So Ed Miliband is as big as the crowd in Hyde Park, the riot is as small as the number who are kicking off. Audience can choose to make the latter bigger, and sure most of them will, but then they know it’s their choice.
Broadcasters should have the balls either to make editorial judgment on what they consider proper or to actually hand over some agency to the audience, not make their judgments on what they *think* the audience wants.
” You are missing my point about the EDL. I am not suggesting that they are comparable to the TUC. The point is whether you should pay more attention to someone because they go to all the trouble to demonstrate.”
So I am therefore able to discuss one of the largest demonstrations ever held in London in the same terms as a few thousand people on an EDL rally.
For fans of opinion polls: tomorrow’s YouGov poll will show 52% back aims of 26th March to 32% against.
“On support for the cuts – even if an ITN poll shows that 50% oppose the cuts then I think that is surprisingly low. Thatcher faced far greater opposition for her economic politics which were arguably less radical.”
When there’s a pro cuts march, in excess of 400,000 people, then I’ll accept the coalition have the support of the people.
There was also an EDL rally in Blackpool yesterday. Marginally less people on it:
http://twitpic.com/4dx22c
You are either missing the point or deliberately skewing the logic.
A couple of facts. Firstly, UKUncut calls for peaceful occupation, not assault as you suggest above. Yes, a couple of hundred so called ‘anarchists’ hijacked that to a great extent, but to suggest this is UKUncut’s fault is mental – they got gatecrashed and that’s not their fault. Do you blame the bride and groom if a gatecrasher vomits on one of their guests?
Secondly, you conveniently ignore the fact that UKUncut have a point. If tax evaders and avoiders coughed up, the march wouldn’t have even had to happen, because the cuts would not be necessary. If the welfare cuts and the tax lost through slimy corporate accounting are roughly the same, then I personally think that most people would agree that the most vulnerable sections of society should be given the break, not the most privileged.
Finally, you provide absolutely no, and I mean no, reason for writing off the peaceful march. You say we need to look beyond mass protest but have nothing to back this up. Up to 500,000 people marched yesterday – the biggest peacetime protest ever in this country. So how can that fail to be an indicator of the public mood? And that’s before a lot of the cuts start to actually bite. And our government, which led worldwide calls for an airstrike in Libya (which I cautiously support), after the government there quashed demonstrations, would be well advised to heed its own people’s voices.
Before you dismiss or vilify me, let me make my own positions clear. I was on the march with my partner, our 4 year old daughter, 7 year old niece and an old friend of mine. We followed the march route and then stayed in Hyde Park. The only thing we knew of any criminal damage was from reports coming through on twitter. Oh yes, and I run a small business and pay corporation tax myself.
Good post and an important discussion. One reason we keep coming back to this debate in advanced democracies is because people marching in the streets rarely accomplishes anything anymore. In the 60s, taking to the streets was a legitimate challenge to power, and in places like Egypt, it still can be. But now, as you point out, these rallies achieve more in terms of demonstrating solidarity than impacting policy.
Only uncreative jerks resort to violence and destruction, but I understand their frustration. To paraphrase the government’s official response to the rally yesterday, “we hear you, but we’re not changing our policy.” The best example of the futility of mass protest is Iraq in 2003. Sometimes public opinion simply isn’t on the side of demonstrations, but in cases where it is, we need new approaches to overcome this crisis of imagination.
Matt Taibbi is one of America’s great gadflys and has written provocatively on this topic: http://www.alternet.org/story/19840/a_march_to_irrelevance/
I still don’t know what the demonstration was about – there seemed to be a loose set of interest groups with woolly objectives. ( For instance, I thought that the Labour Party were FOR cuts but would merely postpone them until the time was right.)
For a start, it had the theme of March for the Alternative – and no alternative was offered, just threats of a big fight and showdown with the coalition. Brilliant! That should solve all our problems.
Since the student demonstrations last year, I have two concerns and I look to the media to report on them:
– the opportunities that demonstrations present to extremists
– and the policing of demonstrations.
The media did a good job of getting right up close to both of my burning issues. Good job, well done. As for the peaceful demonstration, there was nothing to learn or get excited about, from where I was sitting.
What’s witty about sitting on the floor of a shop trying to stop people going about their lawful buisness?
Good article. Mass mobilisations, while increasingly easy in this hyper-connected world, are the spiky-ball-on-a-chain of the political arsenal: clumsy, imprecise and, in the wrong hands, likely to cause more damage to the person wielding it.
Sadly, the romantic side of political campaigning will always hold sway over the hearts of hopeless idealists (as will blaming bogeymen, such as the media, when they fail). But if used as part of a wider strategy which is well-targeted, organised, with clear and realistic aims in mind, mass rallies must surely be of some benefit?
At the very least, I hope Labour (and every other political organisation taking part in Hyde Park) sent in a horde of activists armed with clipboards to solicit membership registrations. Just because there was never any chance of changing the government’s plans, the event needn’t had been a complete waste of time.
What is wrong with this country?
I am tired and sick to the back teeth of ‘demonstrators’ of any ilk. Who speaks for decent, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who want to go about their business without fear of intimidation or abuse.
If the likes of the TUC wish to ‘protest’ – hire a hall or congregate peacefully in a park somewhere and bleat to your hearts intent. Do not enforce you’re will over the rest of us.
As a final thought – were where all these, hard done by protestors when Labour were in power, overseeing the destruction of our economy and leaving us in a horrendous state. Oh, I forgot, it wasn’t Labour’s fault, it was someone else governor – honest.
Hi Charlie- thanks for this interesting post.
Just a comment on Sky’s split screen: I appreciate what you’re saying about the difficulties journos would have in conveying a heterogeneous – or even confused? – set of messages, as with the mix of different agendas playing out in big marches such as Saturday’s.
But wouldn’t you agree that the split screen is not just a solution to the challenge of reporting the march – it is also an active editorial choice? Did any other channels do something similar? I wasn’t watching.
My assumption is that the effect produced by the split scren is still pretty questionable.
‘If you’re not careful, media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing’ (MalcolmX). When media falls to look any deeper into the issues, it fails in its role to faciliate public discussions – the backbone of any functional democratic system. The media has failed to investigate why these savage austerity cuts appear to be necessary and groups like UKuncut need to to the work of discovering and exposing corporate tax dodgers who are partially responsible.
I think UK Uncut demonstrated how useless protests are today. The left needs to stop having protest marches and start ‘building days’. They need to build the communes for people to live in.